I understand the desire for people to shout down those who denigrate the being or actions of others, but I also see the need for such people to out themselves for their ideals and the promote discussion on what exactly is hatred, ignorance stereotyping.

I think that the concept of tolerance is a blanket solution to a real problem we have in society and this problem will not go away by ideologically looking the other way when people act out. There should be standards in society that people and groups like The Westbourgh Baptist Church and the ku klux klan have been actively degrading, that are being duplicated by those who, today remain in the shadows, germinating discontent and anger to a level that brings these hate crimes into being.

I think that there are those who benefit greatly by hate and hate mongering and in order for everybody to understand the difference between sheer hatred and systemic ignorance, there should be open debate on every bodies individual beliefs. I think that the hold of many of the charismatic have on their initiates can be eroded if these people are given a chance to air their opinions

Both hatred and ignorance are dangerous and I’m not sure that either of these can be eradicated, but I think hatred is more a conscious choice than ignorance. I think the best way to repair the damage ignorance does to a human society is discussion. I think that the only real hold that many leaders of hate groups have on their newest members is the sense of repression of opinions and ideals that saturates the most radical groups. I think as long as there is an open and honest avenue to air grievances, either real or imagined, that we can lessen the attraction of these hate groups to many who ultimately end up there.

The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. Hating something or someone is not a crime.

The first amendment has nothing on the power of political correctness and the ability for certain groups to crash public speeches to shout down those they don’t agree with. There is also special interest groups organizing boycotts of services that support social programs they oppose.

The Chick filet issue is a good example of this. Two mayors spoke about taking action against Chick filet for it’s support of anti-gay marriage groups.

There is also special interest groups organizing boycotts of services that support social programs they oppose.

That is their First Amendment right too. The answer to speech you don’t like is speech you do like. Let it be debated out in the open by all sides with differing opinions.

WuCares - 03 October 2013 09:01 PM

The Chick filet issue is a good example of this. Two mayors spoke about taking action against Chick filet for it’s support of anti-gay marriage groups.

This is where it would cross the line. Individuals can boycott Chick filet all they want. But once someone in government office threatens to use the police power of the state against a person, that is a violation of the First Amendment Right of the person who only used words the state disagreed with.

Signature

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. Hating something or someone is not a crime.

A very common limitation on Freedom of Speech is that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is outside the protections of the First Amendment. A similar situation is the prohibition against the use of extreme expletives in public places and fora. Since they are “unpopular” shouldn’t they also be protected, Rocinante?

A very common limitation on Freedom of Speech is that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is outside the protections of the First Amendment. A similar situation is the prohibition against the use of extreme expletives in public places and fora. Since they are “unpopular” shouldn’t they also be protected, Rocinante?

Assuming there is no fire in the theater, yelling “fire” could cause harm to people scrambling to get out. So I would say that is not protected speech.

Using extreme expletives in public would depend on each individual case. But let’s face it, its not like that problem plagues our society to the point we need even more laws to deal with them. Yes, it happens now and then and is unfortunate. In the past, shame kept such cases in check. But since “progressives” consider shame even more of a dirty word than most of the usual suspects, that form of self-check doesn’t help much these days. Not too “progressive” in my opinion. Shame is good when necessary. But to answer your question, if children are present, I have no problem citing someone who does it. In a venue where only adults are around, no need to invoke the police power of the state. Let the adults handle it however they see fit as long as it doesn’t come to blows.

Your thoughts on the same scenarios?

Signature

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

If the theater has large enough exit doors and there are few enough people so that no one would be harmed, then would it be constitutionally legal to call “fire” in the theater?

But to answer your question, if children are present, I have no problem citing someone who does it.

I didn’t see anything in the Constitution limiting Freedom of Speech when children are present. Which Amendment does this? And, if you don’t consider “hate speech” to be limited by the First Amendment, would it be acceptable for someone to engage in that when children are present?

Democracy can only exist where people respect minorities. No law, guaranteeing the possibility of free speech or forbidding hate speech can teach people to be democratic.

Somebody who thinks he is democratic and professes hate speech is a living contradiction. He is not worth to listen to.

Should we listen to fascists? Or should we even forbid them to speak?

Being Democratic doesn’t necessarily mean that you are all inclusive with your ideology. there are many out there that allows everyone to vote, as long as they pass all the hurtles the observer has in store for them.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

A good reason to allow these people to speak is so the general public will know them through their own words. Once you’ve crossed the hate line you will be known for that one incident longer than any other.

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

Remember Michael Richards from Seinfeld and what he did to his career in a single night, tossing racial taunts at a black guy.

Remember Mel Gibson? His one drunken tirade about Jewish people will stay with him forever.

I don’t know about forever, but so long as the Jews are in control of Hollywood, he is pretty much unemployable. It’s obviously fine for Jews to mock others ethnicities, as is evident from Sacha Baron Cohen’s success, brought together by making fun of blacks (Ali G), Arabs (General Aladeen) and Eastern Europeans (Borat).

Remember Michael Richards from Seinfeld and what he did to his career in a single night, tossing racial taunts at a black guy.

What did it do to his career? Since the “incident” in 2006 he has kept pretty busy. According to Wiki, “In 2007, Richards voiced character Bud Ditchwater in the animated film Bee Movie, which starred, and was produced by, Jerry Seinfeld. In 2009, Richards and the other main Seinfeld cast members appeared in the seventh season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. In 2012, Richards appeared in comedy web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, hosted by Jerry Seinfeld. Richards is to make a comeback on Kirstie’s New Show with Kirstie Alley on TV Land in late 2013.”